NARENDRANATH DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 16 of 1985 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 161 of I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act., However Considering the ingredient of Section 161, I.P.C. and parallel provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no separate sentence has been awarded.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is as follows: The appellant was a public servant and while posted as the Officer-in-charge of Gangapur Police Station, in the district of Ganjam, on 18/10/1983, at about 10 P.M. he found that one Simachal Biswal, who subsequently became the informant and decoy in the present case and his friends were gambling in the village. The said Simachal Biswal was apprehended by the present appellant on the allegation of gambling and a case was registered under Section 3 of the Orissa Prevention of Gambling Act. It is further alleged that the present appellant threatened the accused Simachal Biswal to put him in the lock up at the police station but after a lot of persuasion the appellant allowed him to go with direction to come to the police station along with his friends on the following day. Accordingly. Simachal Biswal along with his friends went to the police station on 19/10/1983 in the morning and there the present appellant demanded Rs. 300/- from him as illegal gratification by giving him to understand that he would be released and shall not be taken into custody. Finding no other way out. Simachal Biswal (P.W. 1) negotiated with the appellant who reduced his demand to Rs. 250/- which was agreed to be paid on the date fixed with the promise from the appellant that he would help him in the case instituted under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act. Accordingly, one Jayaram Khatei (P.W, 2) stood as surety in the police station for P.W. I, Bipra Ch. Dakua and Gopinath Swain who were released on bail. After being released, P.W. 1 rand other villagers while returning to their village, decided to bring the fact of demand of illegal gratification by the appellant to the notice of the Vigilance Department. Accordingly, on 22/10/1983 at 2.30 P.M. a written report was presented by P.W. 1 before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur, who directed the O.I.C., Vigilance P.S. Berhampur to register a case against the appellant. Inspector P.K. Sahu of Special Squad was directed to lay a trap and to investigate the case. On the same day at 4.30 P.M. a demonstration showing the formalities of the trap was made by the 1.0. in presence of two Gazetted Officers, P.W. 1 and the over hearing witness P.W. 2. In presence of all the trap party members, the informant narrated his grievances. Use of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate solution was shown to the trap party members. The sodium carbonate solution, which is absolutely transparent in its appearance, turned pink when it came in contact with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, P.W. gave two hundred rupee and one fifty rupee currency notes, the numbers of which were noted by the Gazetted Officers in two separate sheets of papers independently kept and both of them put their secret initials over the notes in question. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were handed over to Sri Suresh Chandra Panda, Asstt. Settlement Officer (P.W. 11) who after handling the notes washed his hand with sodium carbonate solution, the colour of which became pink rose. The notes were then handed over to P.W. 1 with the instruction that he will hand over the same to the accused on demand by the latter. The bailor, Jayaram Khatei, who was also present in the trap team was instructed to accompany P.W. 1 SO that he, after hearing the conversation and witnessing the transaction of actual payment was to give signal .to the vigilance party. Thereafter the trap party proceeded to Gangapur. After reaching near the, police station at 7 P.M. on 22/10/1983, it was found that the AddI. S.P., Berhampur was conducting his official inspection and the accused was busy in attending to the said work. The trap party ditl not feel it proper and conducive to lay the trap, which was rather practically impossible to be materialised. For the aforesaid reason, it was deferred till 23/10/1983. On the next day after observing a little pre trap formalities, the trap party proceeded to Gangapur and reached at Gangapur at 10.30 A.M. and learnt that the accused had gone to Bhanjanagar. The trap party apprehended exposure for which they came back to Bhanjanagar and remained in the vigilance office. At about 4 P.M. they left Bhanjanagar for Gangapur after getting information that the accused had proceeded to Gangapur. P.W. 1 and the accompanying witnesses were asked to go to the police station and the order members of the trap party remained at a distance wailing for the signal of P. W. 2. At 4.45 P.M., P.W. 2 signalled where after the trap party rushed to the police station and found the accused sitting in the official chair. P.W. 1 and the accompanying witnesses were standing in front of his office table. The 1.0. disclosed his indentity and confronted the accused that he had received Rs. 250/- as illegal gratification from the decoy P.W. 1. The accused flatly denied to have received the money which was contradicted by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, The 1.0. washed the hand of the accused with the help of sodium carbonate solution, but there was no noticeable change in colour. Sample of the said hand wash was preserved in a bottle duly sealed and signed by the members of the trap party. P.W. 1 pointed out the place where the accused had kept the tainted notes. The money was recovered from underneath the table cloth put on the table of the accused from its left side. The portion of the table cloth which came in contact with the tainted notes was also washed with sodium carbonate solution which became dirty in colour. The sample of the said wash was kept in another bottle duly sealed and signed. After the investigation was completed sanction for prosecution was obtained where after charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, who faced the trial for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) During the course of trial, the prosecution got 13 witnesses examined in order to bring home to charges. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and he specifically stated that P.W. I was a school teacher and was involved in a gambling case. As he was a Government servant and was implicated in a case instituted under Section 3 of the O.P.G. Act, apprehending that he may lose his job, he tried to persuade the appellant to exclude his name from the aforesaid case. On his refusal, the appellant has been roped in this case. No defence witness has been examined.